|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jan 23 2015, 11:27pm
Post #26 of 58
(487 views)
Shortcut
|
He is associated with American 'celebrity' comic-book films too much, and I would not have liked him to appear in any of the ME films. Also, to have developed any but European-looking people in any large role would have been wrong, in my view, because Tolkien's world has roots in old northern European mythology, not in Africa.
It would have been as wrong as say, plonking a white person into a rendition of a myth about Great Zimbabwe (if such a thing existed), where there were no white people.
I think that Morgan Freeman would have made a fantastic Blue Wizard and been a great complement to Ian McKellen's Gandalf if a film that included the five Istari could have been made. I actually wouldn't have minded if they had gone further and cast a non-white actor for Bard! I think the actor who played Mr. Eko from Lost or Chiewetel Ejiofor can both do 'grim-faced' rather well and I think Mr. Eko in particular would have leant a different physicality to a main character that we haven't really seen in Middle Earth before. |
|
|
Bladerunner
Gondor
Jan 24 2015, 12:08am
Post #27 of 58
(476 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And what about Magneto????....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...I would argue that McKellen is associated just as much with American celebrity comic-book films...
...and Tolkien never described the Blue Wizards that went into the East other than the color of their garments and that they appeared old.
They could just have well been disguised to appear similar to the inhabitants of the lands they were sent to assist.
and comparing Middle-earth mythology to formal cultural mythologies as a basis to refute the possibility of other physical characteristics in the peoples is a stretch.
Eru made them all as he pleased.
He is associated with American 'celebrity' comic-book films too much, and I would not have liked him to appear in any of the ME films.
(This post was edited by Bladerunner on Jan 24 2015, 12:09am)
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jan 24 2015, 12:31am
Post #28 of 58
(467 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm sure pretexts could also be found to include ET and/or Ewoks in the ME films. I wouldn't agree with that, either, based on Tolkien's general writings.
Sir Ian was already established as Gandalf well before he appeared in those celebrity comic-book films, and for me he is Gandalf. I don't associate him with those other films (I don't know them), but with the world of ME (and his appearances in theatre in the UK).
I think I'll leave it at that, since I don't think we'll agree on this point.
|
|
|
Bladerunner
Gondor
Jan 24 2015, 1:02am
Post #29 of 58
(464 views)
Shortcut
|
|
X-Men came out a year before Lord of the Rings....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...so McKellen was established as Magneto before he first appeared as Gandalf.
...and with Ogres and Trolls and Orcs and Goblins and Hobgoblins and Uruk-Hai's, werewolves, vampires and were-bears and pukel-men and Ents and Bombadil's and Maiar's and...what's an Ewok or two in a ME film?....
by the way - I'm hoping you are not confusing Morgan Freeman with Samuel Jackson.
If that is the case then I would agree with you.
Otherwise we just disagree.
But no harm, especially since both Freeman and McKellen would likely have passed to the Undying Lands by the time any of the Silmarillion or other Tolkien works ever make it to the big screen.
I'm sure pretexts could also be found to include ET and/or Ewoks in the ME films. I wouldn't agree with that, either, based on Tolkien's general writings.
Sir Ian was already established as Gandalf well before he appeared in those celebrity comic-book films, and for me he is Gandalf. I don't associate him with those other films (I don't know them), but with the world of ME (and his appearances in theatre in the UK).
I think I'll leave it at that, since I don't think we'll agree on this point.
(This post was edited by Bladerunner on Jan 24 2015, 1:04am)
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jan 24 2015, 1:19am
Post #30 of 58
(457 views)
Shortcut
|
.But no harm, especially since both Freeman and McKellen would likely have passed to the Undying Lands by the time any of the Silmarillion or other Tolkien works ever make it to the big screen.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jan 24 2015, 1:22am
Post #31 of 58
(455 views)
Shortcut
|
Bit if so, good. I think the impetus on films such as this should be to be inclusive, unless sufficient counter arguments can be made, rather the reverse.
(This post was edited by Spriggan on Jan 24 2015, 1:28am)
|
|
|
Bladerunner
Gondor
Jan 24 2015, 1:25am
Post #32 of 58
(449 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I didn't have a problem that needed solving to begin with...//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
DjU
Lorien
Jan 24 2015, 1:41am
Post #33 of 58
(454 views)
Shortcut
|
He is associated with American 'celebrity' comic-book films too much, and I would not have liked him to appear in any of the ME films. Also, to have developed any but European-looking people in any large role would have been wrong, in my view, because Tolkien's world has roots in old northern European mythology, not in Africa.
What on earth is this weird "celebrity" comic-book designation you have given them? They are Comic Book movies.
Not sure how Morgan Freeman is associated with them 'too much' as well? He's appeared in one role, in one franchise, across three movies 'The Dark Knight' trilogy, in a much less prominent role than Ian McKellan (Now on 4 Movies in X-Men + a Cameo), the Dark Knight is also is quite tonally different from the current Marvel movies - if that what I'm presuming you are alluding to with your 'celebrity' epithet.
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
Jan 24 2015, 2:47am
Post #34 of 58
(453 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If you're commenting on something I wrote, please
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
at least take the trouble to read it carefully. What I wrote was clear, unambiguous and the opposite of what you suggest I may be saying. You're clearly an English speaker, and I've no idea how you could have managed to mangle my post so completely when you read it. As far as I can tell, the only way you could come to that conclusion was if you mixed up the words "inside" and "outside", but that seems hardly credible.
But they are written from the perspective of someone who believes in the myth being told. The main danger of showing people from distant lands, is that if you start drawing outside the map, then the myth begins to crumble. If we start accepting that we know about the Far East, for example, then we start wondering how Sauron can be taking over the world, unless he has armies marching south and east - into the Middle Earth version of China, for example. Middle Earthers are not supposed to know about distant lands to the south, east or west. If the elves sail into the west and hit the coast of America, it kind of destroys their entire worldview, for example.
Depicting a variety of ethnicities in Laketown was not a particular problem - we can assume that they are from the regions to east and south on the map, and their presence was not gone into in sufficient detail to cause awkward questions to arise in the mind of the viewer (I think). But any more emphasis on different ethnicities would have broadened the world too much and required explanations of political power structures beyond the borders of Middle Earth. Whilst I agree with the point of a not delving to deeply, otherwise you have to start explaining, I can't help but notice that some of your phrasing seem to make it seem like it could be taken that you are not counting places like Rhûn, Khand and Harad as part of of Middle-earth?
"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
Jan 24 2015, 3:51am
Post #35 of 58
(441 views)
Shortcut
|
|
(Bit of an essay here) The reason we have different ethnicities in the first place is because people were geographically isolated
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
for thousands of years. (The only way ethnic groups can remain distinct long-term while sharing the same geography is if there is a strong social taboo against interbreeding between groups - which has generally not been the case). So, depicting a northern European mythology as involving people of long-standing northern European ancestry is not only appropriate, but also respects the genesis of all the various ethnicities we now have in the world. If you depict the ancient mythological or historical world as one big uniformly multicultural society, you are denying the actual processes that led to us being what we now are - black, white, asian, mixed etc etc.
I'm glad that when I watch Red Cliff or Hero or House of Flying Daggers or a Bollywood film or Indian historical/mythological drama, or an old Russian folk tale, or an Iranian film, or a film about Native American culture, that the producers didn't feel the need to be patronisingly inclusive to other ethnicities, but have filled their casts with people who fit the era/region they are depicting.
We're not insecure children - I think we can cope with stories about people that look or speak differently to ourselves. In fact, even insecure children could cope with it. (I used to be one, and I managed OK). It's worth mentioning that the biggest film industry in the world has hardly any non--Indian characters in their films - apart from the odd extra or occasional henchman/baddie.
If humans manage to keep going for a few hundred more years, I suspect that distinct ethnicities will be much reduced (If I have kids, they will be a mix of 'white' and 'Indian'; many of our friends are of mixed ancestry and their children are even less ethnically identifiable). That in itself is interesting, and will be reflected in the stories and films of our time, just as stories set in the past reflect the interesting ethnic make-up of the various regions of the world.
If we really want inclusivity, we need to step up and stop relying on the monolithic US film industry to finance our film culture - that would provide true inclusivity across a range of films, rather than the corporate solution of imposing the same box ticking standard of fake inclusivity to every film in order to maximise bums on seats.
Bit if so, good. I think the impetus on films such as this should be to be inclusive, unless sufficient counter arguments can be made, rather the reverse.
"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
Ereinion Nénharma
Lorien
Jan 24 2015, 7:20am
Post #36 of 58
(423 views)
Shortcut
|
...that he would have made a fantastic wizard. But at that same time I think his presence would have taken me and lots of others ''out of'' Middle-earth, if you know what I mean. Just because he is so famous and appears in so many movies, much more than Ian McKellen. Lots of people would be like; ''hey look, it's Morgan Freeman!''. And a part of the ''magic'' and ''feeling'' of being in Middle-earth would be gone.
Otherwise, as I already said, I think Freeman would have been the best wizard anyone could wish for after Lee and McKellen.
''Do not fear the shadows, for seeing them means light is near...''
|
|
|
Ereinion Nénharma
Lorien
Jan 24 2015, 7:26am
Post #37 of 58
(430 views)
Shortcut
|
...the ''not knowing'' about other lands is nonsense. In ancient Mediterranean cities for example the local people would occasionaly encouter Asian, Middle-eastern and African people. Coming in for trade, war, adventure or as slaves. No, they wouldn't know (much) about the lands these people come from, but that does not mean they would never be able to encouter those people. Plus, they are uneducated, not stupid. They would know there are lands to the east and south, just not how these lands look and where exactly they are, etc.
Also, Laketown is said to have been an important trade-hub, which makes it all the more logical to have people from all directions living there. And those shown in the movie could have easily come from Khand, Harad, etc.
And those ARE on the maps!!
''Do not fear the shadows, for seeing them means light is near...''
(This post was edited by Ereinion Nénharma on Jan 24 2015, 7:28am)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jan 24 2015, 11:51am
Post #38 of 58
(414 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think they are the two options are they?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A mono-ethnic presentation or one big uniformly multicultural world.
We know there were numerous population movements in the history of ME, we know that regions were conquered and reconquered by different peoples, we know there was some long distance trade.
If we are worried about pseudo-historical realism then I would argue the above points us towards a few folks of differing ethnicities scattered about the place - otherwise we would have to say ME operates differently to any historical example of the same situation.
For the rest, I'm a simple soul. I never really buy the various forms of concern that a little inclusion is simultaneously too much and not enough. A little is better than none, to my mind, and a good amount would be good.
I don't think it's a question of "coping". However, sadly, as I look about, I don't see the majority of people watching films about people who look and speak differently, in the main. US cinema goers aren't struggling to get a seat for those Iranian films nor are UK mutiplexes awash with Korean rom-coms. Which is a shame, but there we are.
So, for global films such as this, where there is no pressing need not to, why not. It isn't the best thing in the world, but it's better than nowt.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jan 24 2015, 1:19pm
Post #39 of 58
(395 views)
Shortcut
|
By 'celebrity comic-book' films, I mean the very American films that are filled with predictable celebrity performers and that all appear much the same to me – instantly forgettable plots and a lot of noise, apart from one that I've seen.
For me he is associated with by-the-numbers American films, and I would simply not like to see him in a ME film, which has roots in British and northern European mythology. Moreover, in fact, I could accept a Maori – one that was not well known – much more than someone whose roots are on the African continent. Maoris are more 'exotic' looking to me and fit quite well in the world of ME. However, I still think the ethnicity of the main actors chosen for the ME films was right, given the roots of the mythology.
As for Sir Ian McKellen, he is British, and for me he has always been the most associated with British theatre, not with American films – despite his appearances in the films you mention. He is therefore the perfect choice for the role of Gandalf, as is Sir Ian Holm for the role of old Bilbo in FotR, as far as I'm concerned.
(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Jan 24 2015, 1:26pm)
|
|
|
Mcoull
Bree
Jan 24 2015, 1:32pm
Post #40 of 58
(398 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree completely- for me Morgan Freeman is Morgan Freeman when I see him in a film, especially in more recent years when there have been a lot of parodies and things around his distinctive voice. Having Morgan Freeman as one of the blue wizards would have been almost a joke or a stunt casting, the same way I feel about Stephen Fry or Billy Connolly tbh. In those cases I see the actors not The Master or Dain unfortunately. But I'm sure there are lots of people who would like to see Morgan Freeman so this is purely my opinion and experiences.
Perhaps a better fit would be David Gulpilil? If you google image search him there are plenty of photos with long hair and a beard. He looks very wise and old to me. Or there are always the unknown actors that Peter Jackson is so great at choosing-I think most if not all of the cast of lotr (and a large part of the hobbit cast too) were new to me and so I see the character when I look at the actor now!
I also do find it a bit of a shame that for films which so celebrate New Zealand none of the main cast are recognisably Maori, even some of the dwarves could have been. I know Azog and Bolg, and a lot do the stunt guys but they are all usually under so much make up or cgi that it's impossible to tell.
(This post was edited by Mcoull on Jan 24 2015, 1:42pm)
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
Jan 24 2015, 6:42pm
Post #41 of 58
(379 views)
Shortcut
|
|
As stated in The Hobbit...clearly, Laketown was a center for trade coming from
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
East and South. It was a nice touch and truly reflective of the possible mixed citizenry of the town.
"They still throve on the trade that came up the great river from the South and was carted past the falls to their town; but in the great days of old, when Dale in the North was rich and prosperous, they had been wealthy and powerful, and there had been fleets of boats on the waters, and some were filled with gold and some with warriors in armour, and there had been wars and deeds which were now only a legend..." - The Hobbit"
(This post was edited by Eruonen on Jan 24 2015, 6:46pm)
|
|
|
Moahunter
Rohan
Jan 24 2015, 7:24pm
Post #42 of 58
(370 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Maoris in Lake-town would be an anachronism.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They didn't get to NZ until c. 1300 AD.
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
Jan 24 2015, 10:07pm
Post #43 of 58
(339 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ah, but the world was shaped differently then.....mythically.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am sure the Maori ancestors could have been found in the far E of middle earth.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jan 24 2015, 11:45pm
Post #44 of 58
(326 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, but Maori-like people may have been in ME all the time
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Not actual Maoris, of course. We are talking about a completely different world, not our Earth…
They didn't get to NZ until c. 1300 AD.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jan 25 2015, 1:59am
Post #45 of 58
(311 views)
Shortcut
|
Having some Lake-town residents with Easterling ancestry is not a stretch at all - IIRC, the appendices mention Easterling invasions of Rhovanion on an occasion or two. And we all know what tends to happen during invasions. There's even precedence in the lore, with Brodda the Easterling taking a kinswoman of Hurin as his wife (in The Silmarillion).
As for folks from Harad, I think it would have made more sense to include them in Minas Tirith as opposed to Lake-town, especially considering the history between Gondor and Umbar. It's not entirely improbable that a trader or two from Harad could have made it all the way up to Lake-town, but the distance between Lake-town and Harad is pretty vast. So the sight of Haradrim in Lake-town probably would have been an extremely rare occurrence.
Anyway, if I had to guess, I would say that Tolkien probably did not envision Lake-town as being quite as ethnically diverse as Jackson portrayed it. But since he never specifically mentions the racial make-up of Lake-town (other than mentioning that the Lake-towners were "Northmen" akin to the Rohirrim and Men of Dale), it's not as if it's a major departure from the books.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jan 25 2015, 3:03am
Post #46 of 58
(313 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Obviously Middle-earth is complete fiction...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...but it is supposed to represent our own world in long ages past.
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
Jan 25 2015, 2:47pm
Post #47 of 58
(288 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The different ethnicities are represented in the books.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and pretty well represented in the films. We don't get to see everybody - the people from the far north that live on the ice don't appear - we'd need Unfinished Tales for that. But we get glimpses of people from the south and east in places where you'd expect to find them. The films and the books are multi-ethnic, and conform to the ethnic mix that Tolkien outlined in the books. We even see a Pukel man statue in DOS and, of course, the Rohirrim, Gondorians and other ethnic groups. There is a bit of mixing - Aragorn, the Numenorean, turns up amongst the normal men in Bree, for example. We didn't get to see the people from the south coast, sadly, because of the annoying green bubbles,
As for having a few different ethnicities scattered about the place - I think people tend to over-estimate this likelihood. Where I live, up until very recently, it was rare to go to town and see another face much darker than the traditional Scottish (white, with blue blotches where the cold has got to it, or, in summer, bright red due to sudden and unexpected exposure to sunlight). My partner - who is ethnically Indian - would note how rarely we would see another brown skinned person. Outside the tourist season, it is still fairly uncommon - and this is in one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world, just fifty miles from the nearest big city. Take a look at the Mappa Mundi - ancient Europeans really didn't have much knowledge of far distant lands, beyond rumour and tall tales (and that's comparatively recently).
I don't really know what you mean by 'inclusion'. There's nothing exclusive about a film that concerns a particular people. And The Hobbit is not a global tale - it's written specifically as part of a mythology of England, based primarily on Northern European and Scandinavian folklore. When I've seen parts of the Mahabharat filmed, I've not seen ethnically European or African people wandering about in the background - yet no complaints about lack of inclusivity - why would there be?
If you're not used to seeing people watching films where people look and speak differently to themselves, then I expect you live in the USA. If you live here, nearly every film in the cinema comes from the US, where people have a very different way of speaking and are often ethnically different. So, yes, the majority of films in UK multiplexes are foreign, and nearly every film in Scottish cinemas is full of non-native customs, looks and habits. Apart from the US, the rest of the world seems fine with seeing foreign films, but they also see no need to tamper with their own histories or mythologies in order to reflect modern urban life. That's not exclusive - it's just appropriate to the subject matter.
A mono-ethnic presentation or one big uniformly multicultural world.
We know there were numerous population movements in the history of ME, we know that regions were conquered and reconquered by different peoples, we know there was some long distance trade.
If we are worried about pseudo-historical realism then I would argue the above points us towards a few folks of differing ethnicities scattered about the place - otherwise we would have to say ME operates differently to any historical example of the same situation.
For the rest, I'm a simple soul. I never really buy the various forms of concern that a little inclusion is simultaneously too much and not enough. A little is better than none, to my mind, and a good amount would be good.
I don't think it's a question of "coping". However, sadly, as I look about, I don't see the majority of people watching films about people who look and speak differently, in the main. US cinema goers aren't struggling to get a seat for those Iranian films nor are UK mutiplexes awash with Korean rom-coms. Which is a shame, but there we are.
So, for global films such as this, where there is no pressing need not to, why not. It isn't the best thing in the world, but it's better than nowt.
"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
Jan 25 2015, 5:03pm
Post #48 of 58
(287 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not knowing about means not knowing about.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't know about a lot of things, but I know they exist or must exist. There are planets around distant stars, but I don't know about them; I know they must be there, but not whether there are people on them - beings we would consider to be sentient. There are peoples who, until very recently, knew nothing about those from outside their own region - they are not stupid; they just hadn't had any contact with outsiders, despite having past ancestral links with them.
Inland Sub Saharan Africa was virtually unmapped by Europe before 1813 - just a big blank space on the map. Coastal regions weren't explored until the fifteenth century. Knowledge of those lands prior to that seems to be based on wild speculation and rumour, with the one-legged or headless creations crudely drawn onto maps. There was no concept of human habitation in that region. India was known and traded with in Roman times, but little was known of China. Given that after Roman withdrawal from Britain, the successive European tribes that moved in (or back) seem to have forgotten much of what Rome knew - including how to construct a decent wagon - technology which wasn't rediscovered until the Victorian era; so it's not surprising that knowledge of the wider world shrank after the Romans left. Pre-Roman Britain had some connections with the Middle East - Cornwall traded with people from that region, for example, swapping tin for spices, but I've not seen evidence that there was knowledge of, let alone the presence of contemporary travelers from, regions to the east of this at that time.
What is interesting is that people obviously forget where they come from - European ancestors came from somewhere north of the Black Sea, and there must have been a western and southern migration of peoples to what became Europe and India, but without a written language, people's origins would eventually become muddled and mythologised and knowledge of the world retreats again as people become settled and isolated in new locations. Tolkien was well aware of the interconnectedness of people and the nature of myths, and he chose to depict his Anglo-Saxon style myth as a localised one - what happens outside the map is largely irrelevant; whatever is out there is outside the mythical world depicted and the lands in that immediate direction have been taken by or allied with the enemy, so trade and exploration are unlikely.
On your second point; that is exactly what I was suggesting - so who are these people who are arguing that these places are not on the map, and that we wouldn't expect to see a few people who may trace their ancestry to Rhun or Harad etc? Why are you arguing against a point that nobody has made?
...the ''not knowing'' about other lands is nonsense. In ancient Mediterranean cities for example the local people would occasionaly encouter Asian, Middle-eastern and African people. Coming in for trade, war, adventure or as slaves. No, they wouldn't know (much) about the lands these people come from, but that does not mean they would never be able to encouter those people. Plus, they are uneducated, not stupid. They would know there are lands to the east and south, just not how these lands look and where exactly they are, etc.
Also, Laketown is said to have been an important trade-hub, which makes it all the more logical to have people from all directions living there. And those shown in the movie could have easily come from Khand, Harad, etc.
And those ARE on the maps!!
"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jan 25 2015, 5:45pm
Post #49 of 58
(275 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What probability level are you looking for?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm not quite sure what you mean by being suspicious of how likely it would be to have a few folks of other ethnicities in areas of population shift, occupation or long distance trade.
There can't be any question that there have been people of other ethnicities in Northern Europe for millennia. Why would we find it more unlikely in a fantasy pseudo-history than in actual history?
Alas I am in the UK, and thought we were am discussing ethnic inclusivity in popular global cinema. You examples of Iranian, and Bollywood cinema were good ones - and I pointed out that alas these are not mainstream viewing for the majority of the UK/US population.
I'm not sure that English speaking white Scots watching English speaking white Americans is as good an example!
|
|
|
Ereinion Nénharma
Lorien
Jan 25 2015, 6:00pm
Post #50 of 58
(277 views)
Shortcut
|
you did.
''Do not fear the shadows, for seeing them means light is near...''
|
|
|
|
|
Good – problem solved, then.
[
